Ett kliv för klimatet - en kvalitativ studie om Klimatklivets roll i den svenska klimatpolitiken och investeringsstödets kostnadseffektivitet

Sammanfattning: Klimatklivet is an investment subsidy, to support measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Even though Klimatklivet has contributed to climate investments that is estimated to have reduced Sweden’s emissions by 1.3 million tons of greenhouse gases, the investment subsidy has had to endure criticism. Klimatklivet has been accused of not being a cost-effective policy. The objective of this study was to describe and evaluate what role Klimatklivet has as a part in Swedish climate policies and to investigate some of the arguments, for and against, Klimatklivet as a cost-efficient climate policy. Interviews with administrative officials that work with Klimatklivet were carried out, as well as an examination of three evaluation reports targeting Klimatklivet. The material was analyzed with qualitative text analysis as a method. The study shows that the characteristics of Klimatklivet are that it is actor driven and a softer kind of climate policy compared to, for example a carbon tax. It is seen as a way to access emission sources that are difficult to reduce, handle conflicts of aims and a way to increase the speed of the transition. Arguments for Klimatklivet as a cost-effective policy is that it is an instrument that reach sectors where other instruments are weak and that the investment subsidy is politically accepted compared to raised carbon tax. Arguments against Klimatklivet are that it leads to a twofold steering, distortion of the collective climate politics and that it would have been more cost-effective to raise the carbon tax. Klimatklivet contributes to sustainable development in different aspects but it has imperfections as well. Klimatklivet is resolving negative externalities as well as contributing to positive externalities in a climate related context. The investment subsidy has become a second-best option when the most cost-effective option is not politically viable.